Readers' comments

This article can basically be summed into one statement: the British government seems to have lost much legitimacy of their people. What’s funny to me is the cynic similarities between many Americans and now 40% of Britons who do not trust the government to put the national interest first and the 60% who feel as though politicians never tell the truth. In that way, I cannot help but sympathize with the Britons.
I think the war in Iraq is a perfect example of why Britons feel distrust towards their government. Even here in America there is much animosity towards George W. Bush for involving our nation into a war the citizens now wish to pull out of. After all of those broken promises of, “Oh yes, we are ending this war in Iraq and withdrawing troops,” I don’t blame both Americans and Britons for not being able to trust both governments.

It may be observed that commenter “eroteme” has failed to answer the questions posed earlier.

What eroteme has done instead (as anticipated in Question 6) is to present:

a) eroteme’s own individual preferences concerning forms of government; and

b) arguments suggesting how eroteme came to hold those preferences.

What eroteme has failed to do is to demonstrate any principle by which eroteme’s individual preferences might be privileged over those of other people (including people who might prefer the adoption of some other form of government). Does eroteme – for example - have a Cosmic Teachers’ Guide with all the “right” answers in the back of the book? Does eroteme have a Monopoly on Wisdom, conferred by a Charter from Heaven?

Let’s look at a few of eroteme’s arguments more closely.

“Stephen Morris is naive if he thinks that the 'People' know best and if given more direct power will always act in the interest of the larger nation.”

I expressed no such belief (making this aspect of eroteme’s argument irrelevant) for the simple reason that notions of “best” and “the interest of the larger nation” are subjective, and therefore fatuous in this context.

If there were an objective “best” or “interest of the larger nation” then one might argue that it should be pursued. But there is not! They are matters of individual preference, and the issue is how to choose an “aggregation device” with which to aggregate conflicting individual preferences.

eroteme expresses (or at least implies) a preference against direct aggregation. But again, eroteme presents no principle by which that individual preference might be privileged a priori over those of other people.

“Mark Twain once remarked . . . etc, etc”. An argumentum ad verecundiam. So what if Mark Twain remarked this? There is nothing here to privilege Mark Twain’s preferences or arguments over those of other people.

The paragraph beginning: “The US in 2011 etc, etc” An is-ought fallacy. The presented facts – or putative facts – cannot imply that any form of government ought or ought not be adopted. They can only demonstrate how an individual came to hold a preference concerning different forms of government.

Other people might look at the same evidence and reach entirely the opposite conclusion. They might, for example, conclude that the US federal government’s budget woes are evidence against (so-called) “representative” government. (They might even contrast it with the Swiss’s fiscal prudence in voting directly for an increase in VAT!) They might conclude that – since the right of initiative was introduced into California in 1911 – that state has seen one of the most prosperous and progressive societies in the world.

None of the arguments above demonstrate that Democracy ought to be adopted. They merely highlight that eroteme’s arguments cannot demonstrate that it ought not be adopted. eroteme’s preferences are not privileged a priori.

Then we come to “his idea that Switzerland is a model to be aspired to”. I expressed no such belief. My reference to Switzerland was merely that the People there (and in those US states with the right of initiative) had adopted Democracy when offered a free choice, and have not used their democratic rights to repeal Democracy . . . . even though it is a straightforward matter to call a referendum for that purpose.

Is eroteme perhaps suggesting that eroteme’s own views on this matter should prevail over those of the People? And, if so, why? Again, does eroteme have a Charter from Heaven?

The remainder of the paragraph is another is-ought fallacy.

In summary, my earlier comment was not an argument that Democracy ought to be adopted. On the contrary, as I stated: “God hasn’t granted me a Monopoly on Wisdom in this matter. If ever the People were allowed to freely choose their system of government . . . it is not inconceivable that they would choose to invest ‘representatives’ with a monopoly on power.”

However, as a matter of historical record we may observe that:

a) no such referendum has ever been held in Britain;

b) where people have been given the choice (for example, in Switzerland or in those states of the US which enjoy the right of initiative) they choose Democracy – typically to the greatest extent offered to them; and

c) where people have Democracy, they do not use their democratic rights to abolish it - even though it is a straightforward matter to call a referendum to do so.

So why have the People of Britain never been permitted to choose for themselves the system of government they prefer?

I live in SE Asia. Western Embassies bang on to the governments here about nepotism, corruption and over privileged politicians and their families. And yet we now recognise that we have exactly the same problems, to a greater or lesser degree, across Western Europe and North America. While in the West we may not have the same levels of thieving and greed by politicians( principally because of the free press) we no longer have the moral standing to wag our finger at Asian countries and tut tut.

I recall being astonished in 2009 when Lord Taylor of Blackburn (amongst three others) was caught red handed offering to favourably amend national legislation for individuals or businesses in return for cash payments. Ow4744 states we do not have criminal parliamentarians! And Taylor was not even elected to his position. Taylor was suspended from the Lords for six months even though we regularly imprison those who do not pay their taxes or cheat the welfare system.

Politics in the UK is a business like it is in Asia. Politicans in the UK for the most part have been in some form of politics all their lives. Compared to the average salary being an MP is stil a well paid job. A political career leads to non-executive directorships, senior positions in universities, fat advisory posts in think tanks and fine sounding titles. It takes a strong character anywhere not to be seduced by all the rich pickings of politics.

Politicians in the West are charged with regulating their own states through parliament and the executive. They pass the rules for the rest of us. And yet in the UK they are the least regulated or rule bound of any of us. Taylor clearly thought no rule stopped him taking a fee for cheating an entire nation in respect of its own rules ( and he is not the only one) and up until last year parliamentary expenses had no enforceable rules governing them at all. And we wonder why we have lost trust and confidence in our political class.

Stephen Morris is naive if he thinks that the 'People' know best and if given more direct power will always act in the interest of the larger nation.
Mark Twain once remarked that democracy would fail because, 'once the people realized that they could vote themselves a good time, they would'.
The US in 2011 is a good example where supposedly intelligent educated voters want to slash taxes and yet will only cut spending if it does not affect them leading to broke government at federal/state/local levels. Exhibit A is California and its system of voter lead ballot Propositions that if approved by a simple majority become law.
As to his idea that Switzerland is a model to be aspired to. I wonder if he actually has ever lived for any time in Switzerland- if he did he would find that it is has a byzantine and highly politicized civil system and endless petty rules and constraints about every aspect of life. Most importantly he would know that in reality that it is a place of smoke and mirrors where all the real levers of power are pulled behind the scenes by a local cantonal oligarchy made up usually of old well connected families and business interests.

We are led to believe that the current occupier of Bagehot's perch takes note of comments made, but does this extend to responding to a question? HarryHatless asks why is it dangerous not to trust politicians. This piece prompts me to make the same query. My concern is that excessive executive dominance allows bad policy to be implemented and bad laws to be enacted. I want MPs to have more powers to scrutinise government proposals, to winnow out the rubbish and to hold government to account. I would only extend trust to the extent that they could demonstrate they were doing this. So, again, why is it so dangerous not to trust politicians?

@Cutters
My MP was deselected as a result of the expenses scandal and now faces prosecution. He certainly will not be going to the house of lords. The new MP was previously leader of the labour council. The new MP is worthy of respect while the previous one was not.

The system seems to be working to some extent except that the previous MP was clearly unsuitable and should never have been selected in the first place. This is worrying because here in Scotland we have proportional representation for some MSPs chosen from party lists. This means it is difficult to vote out individuals who are unsuitable if the parties are choosing duff canditates.

Another problem is that once an MP is deselected a constituency effectively has no MP. Our ex MP continued to draw salary and expenses even though he had ceased doing his job as an MP. This is a real bummer for the constituency concerned. There should be some sort of 'recall' mechanism as they have in the US.

Stephen Fry put it best - if you look around you , many people that you know try a swindle here and a swindle there, and MPs are no different. The expenses scandal was an example of where poor policy allowed fallible human beings to make their lives easier (and they do have rather time-consuming jobs, running the country and all) so the answer is to change the policy and get on with running the country rather than getting entangled in needlessly righteous anger. I know people who try and dodge taxes, who lie on insurance claims, or who try and escape jury duty, and I'm sure everyone else does. Just remember they usually get caught out in the end, like MPs, unless they're fiendishly clever.

I'm sorry, but everyone seems to act as if the white-hot outrage of the British public is 100% justified when quiet patently it is not. It is an example of an emotional upswell like that against the 'bankers' which seems to have returned to mild resentment simmering under the surface, and I'm sure that it will be proved that the public will become less angry and cynical than they are now at some point. They won't become deferential 1950s peons again but nor will this current anger be sustained - the reality is that individually and collectively, we usually have better things to worry about and that essentially illustrates the over-reaction to what has happened.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try and combat corruption and poor governance, I simply mean to say that we seem to assume our nation is more corrupt and ill-governed than it actually is. Take a look abroad and you will see that bar certain nations like those of Scandinavia, our politicians are not that bad - we have no pork-barrel congressmen or criminal Italian parliamentarians. And I think if British politicians were forced to resign over unpaid parking tickets and live in state-sponsored bedsits then we'd end up with more a bunch of personally rich, career politicians than we have now.

Lastly, who said politicians have ever been enlightened beings totally committed to public service? Maybe in 1790s America they were, but even that I doubt. The reality is that politicians are taken from the ranks of humanity and thus share all the same traits with self-righteous John Bull that he chooses to deny. Stephen Fry put it best - if you look around you, many people that you know try a swindle here and a swindle there, and MPs are no difference. The expenses scandal was an example of where poor policy allowed fallible human beings to make their lives easier (and they do have rather time-consuming jobs, running the country and all) more so I would argue than parliamentarians. Yes we would all like to believe that we could have public servants who never engage in such behavior but the reality is that's pie in the sky thinking, it will probably always happen once in a while, so we should work to minimise such behaviour but not be so flabbergasted when it does occur.

Find me a country were no-one has ever contravened principles of public service in government, and I'll find you the cab driver who could actually run the country rather than just thinking he could.

Bagehot has to short a memory. First we have the lies and spin of Labour, and now we have a coalition that means that whatever was said before, now only counts if the coalition has agreed to it... not a very satisfactory out come.

@ Tiger Feet, They are now sitting in the Upper House, there is just no way of getting rid of the slimey bunch! it should not be allowed and why having an elected Upper House is a bad thing for everyone but politicians.

The last election cleared out a lot of old-time and unsatisfactory MPs. The new lot have less of a sense of entitlement and the good intentions of people new in post. The cynicism regarding the previous parliament was justified. I expect the British will be more respectful of this parliament until it too becomes corrupted by being too long in power.

I think spin and the way politicians play with words has a lot to do with the distrust of MP's.

Take, for example, the Labour manifesto for the 2010 General Election, which said,

"To ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election, we will hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons.".

Most people reading that would think that Labour PPC's standing on that manifesto would be in favour of AV, but now we find out that 114 of them will be actively campaigning against AV, with one MP telling me that the commitment was only to a referendum and not to AV its self, and that this was made clear to PPC's at the time. It may have been made clear to PPC's, but what about the people who matter, the electorate?

However, they both have ensured laws are passed to prevent officers and directors of publicly funded companies from lying.

Ergo, have politicians and bureaucrats subject to the same full, true and plain disclosure in all communications, with the same penalties of fines, jail time and prohibition from holding public office for all breaches. That will solve the problem quickly and also make their communications much shorter and less frequent.

If Dr Pangloss really wants to understand the People’s cynicism, he might try answering these questions:

1. At what point in the entire history of Britain did the People ever express their preference, in a referendum, to have all political power delegated to and monopolised by (so-called) "representatives"?

2. Is it Divinely ordained that government be organised thus? (If so, to quote John Locke, its supporters "ought to show us this charter from heaven, and let us see . . .");

3. Can it be demonstrated that the sullen acquiescence of the People towards the existing system of non-democratic government reflects implied consent? Specifically, can it be demonstrated that such acquiescence is not merely the "dominant strategy" adopted by individuals operating under conditions of Prisoner's Dilemma in the face of heavily entrenched and well-funded political parties opposed to the introduction of Democracy?

4. In the absence of Divine Authority, in the absence of an authorising referendum, and in the absence of demonstrable implied consent, by what principle do this clique exercise their supposed monopoly right to govern?

5. Why have the People never been given the option of choosing - in a free referendum in which the available options have not been pre-vetted by entrenched politicians - a democratic form of government for their country? And if Democracy is such an undesirable system of government, why is it that the Swiss, for example, have not used their democratic rights to abolish Democracy?? Why have those US States with the right of initiative not called referendums to repeal it??

6. In the event that answers to these questions (including this Question 6) are provided in the form of statements of personal opinion, by what objective principle might those personal opinions be privileged over the opinions of other people (including in particular people who might support the introduction of Democracy were it ever to be put to a referendum)? And, in the absence of such an objective principle, by what objective principle do those non-democratic opinions prevail?

Even if one personally loathes Democracy, there is no Charter from Heaven which grants any individual – or any subset of the People – a monopoly on deciding the issue. No individual or clique is “privileged” a priori.

And mathematically, the only way of aggregating a set of individual preferences without privileging some of them a priori is . . . . to privilege none of them.

I personally do not know what system of government the People would prefer. God hasn’t granted me a Monopoly on Wisdom in this matter.

If ever the People were allowed to freely choose their system of government (in a referendum in which the options had not been pre-vetted by self-serving politicians) it is not inconceivable that they would choose to invest “representatives” with a monopoly on power.

However, as a matter of historical record we may observe that:

a) no such referendum has ever been held in Britain;

b) where people have been given the choice (for example, in Switzerland or in those states of the US which enjoy the right of initiative) they choose Democracy – typically to the greatest extent offered to them; and

c) where people have Democracy, they do not use their democratic rights to abolish it - even though it is a straightforward matter to call a referendum to do so.

So why have the People of Britain never been permitted to choose for themselves the system of government they prefer?